The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I had originally closed this as a redirect. Following a great discussion on my Talk including those with disparate views, I agree with their input and am re-closing this as no consensus. It could have gone to formal DRV, but we do not need further bureaucracy on this topic. That said, if someone feels strongly it needs a different close, consider this my blessing for it to go to DVR. Star Mississippi 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANLIB[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

STANLIB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural relisting of this previous AfD. Article was redirected, but consensus at this DRV discussion was that references brought up later in the aforementioned AfD discussion were not fully considered. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability or "coverage"....
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
An analysis of the references introduced at the last AfD but not considered:
  • This from IOL is entirely based on their 2021 interim-results announcement. Therefore has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
  • This reference is an advertorial with no attributed journalist and clearly is within the topic company's echo chamber with substantial amounts of information provided by the company and their executives. It was originally published in the "Personal Finance" magazine but I am unable to locate a copy. Fails ORGIND
  • This reference is entirely based on a company announcement and contains identical text to that found in other articles from other newspapers such as The Weekly Argus, Saturday Star and The Independent on Saturday.
  • This reference is entirely based on an announcement by the company that its rules on money market unit trusts are changing, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This reference refers to Bloomberg and is also entirely based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This reference and this related reference are also based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This reference gives it away in the heading and is entirely based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This from News24 relies entirely on quotes from a company exec, contains no identifiable "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the topic company, many of the articles had no attributable journalist which are red flags but even leaving that aside, the articles are just "coverage" based on company announcements and PR. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why The Weekly Argus, Saturday Star and The Independent on Saturday all have the same text is that they belong to the same media group (Independent Newspapers). Stanlib has had sustained coverage over many years from numerous sources. Park3r (talk) (And it's Weekend Argus, not Weekly Argus) Park3r (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a 2005 article by Bloomberg that critically analyses Stablib's performance https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brits-takes-over-after-miller-leaves-stanlib-740381 Alan Miller left the job last month as Stanlib slumped to eighth position from third a year ago in a survey by Plexus Research & Surveys on the returns posted by South African unit trusts over the five years to June. "Miller has declined to give a reason for his departure." (indicating that this is more than a press release and that a journalist sought out the reason for the departure.
    • [1] After a decade of under-performing, the benchmark in its equity funds – the most prominent asset class among investors in South Africa – Stanlib struggled to keep clients, let alone attract large values of new investments. and: He admits that Stanlib has not mastered stock selection in South African equities. The firm is now bringing in a new head of equity research, Andrew Cuff, who will be starting with the firm on March 2 to help it on that front. Again, these are indications that the source is journalistic, not merely regurgitating a press release. A company would not, in a press release "admit" that they are struggling with stock selection, unless they were asked.
    • [2] Questioned on why it appeared that the same players always seemed to be involved in the big empowerment deals, Macozoma said it was important for Safika to ensure it used its resources to the best of its ability and included as many other people as possible in the deal. Again an indication of independent journalistic coverage, as well as notability, since a journalist asked a critical question about company policy.
    • [3] Here's an article where Stanlib is mentioned in passing. The reason why this passing one line mention is significant is that Stanlib is that it demonstrates that Stanlib is a known and large player in South Africa that doesn't need a preeamble
    • [4]. This was dismissed above as being based on a company press release, but it actually has critical coverage from a third party that the journalist who wrote the article sought out, rather than swallowing the company line: Ryk de Klerk, an investment analyst and co-founder of the PlexCrown Fund Ratings, says it makes sense for an asset 
manager to offer investors fewer funds with clearly defined investment objectives and mandates. This also benefits the manager, because having too many funds creates the risk that less-popular funds will be “neglected”. De Klerk says the reduction in the number of funds will not automatically result in Stanlib improving its position in the PlexCrown Fund Ratings. Asset managers with a large range of funds, such as Coronation and Nedgroup Investments, have done well in the ratings. Park3r (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of NCORP guidelines and SIRS in particular. Articles which obviously and clearly rely on information provided by the company, interviews, announcements, whatever, may well contain single sentences which may be plucked out, examined in isolation, and declared as "Independent Content" - but that is perverse and those sentences are not clearly attributable to a source unconnected with the company as the journalist is merely rephrasing or summarising. Similarly, saying that a journalist asked a question therefore the response is "Independent Content" is simply wishful thinking. Or saying that because the article contains negative information therefore must qualify is another example of wishful thinking. There shouldn't be a need to comb through articles plucking a sentence here and a sentence there and trying to stitch together something that meets the criteria, in my experience articles/references that meet the criteria are clear and obvious. HighKing++ 12:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You seem to have moved the goalposts on this. You claimed that there was no independent editorial content in the sources. I found it, but now it’s not adequate. Ultimately though, there has been a ton of content on Stanlib in the South African financial press. I searched Moneyweb, which is one of the top financial sites and found 1300 mentions of Stanlib with articles having bylines. [5] Unfortunately Moneyweb has recently been paywalled, but there is probably the same amount of content on other financial sites. They’re a large and well-known player in the SA asset management space. UPDATE: there are a large number of mentions on News24/Fin24 as well [6] update 2: here’s a critical article about them overcharging investors and being forced to pay them back. [7] [8] Here’s a 2008 article that excoriates them for poor performance [9] 2019 article about performance from Business Day [10] Another one about an attempt to deal with poor performance from 2010 [11] Here’s another news article about a dispute with investors [12] 2016 article criticising them for closing their technology fund (you can bypass the Moneyweb paywall with "view source": [13] Park3r (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Take the Bloomberg reference where you extract a quote beginning with "Alan Miller left the job last month" as an example of "Independent Content". The entire article is based on statements made by the topic company and what appears to be an interview with George Brits with a headline "Brits takes over after Miller leaves Stanlib" and that is why I said it fails ORGIND for not having in-depth information (CORPDEPTH) that resulted from "Independent Content". Now if you want to select individual sentences from such an article and hold them up as "Independent Content", fine, but you are not left with anything that even faintly resembles something that would meet CORPDEPTH. All of the in-depth information has been provided by the company or by the exec. So, saying that the goalposts were moved is not true - they're the same goalposts. Moving on ... as you know, the volume of "mentions" doesn't matter, we need two (or more) individual references. You say they're a large and well-known company - great - but maybe that's because they've a very active PR dept that put out lots of information that is repeated? Also, articles that comment on funds' performance is not the same as an article on the company itself - the topic is the company, not the fund. The new references you've provided are just more of the same, based on announcements. HighKing++ 11:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response : For the new references, I deliberately chose articles where STANLIB was the subject of the article, that were critical of the company, in WP:RS, with many carrying the bylines of credible financial journalists, over decades, demonstrating that the subject meets WP:GNG at least. They are not "based on announcements", as no company would announce that it overcharged investors [14][15] or was accused of poor investment decisions [16]. Your argument "Also, articles that comment on funds' performance is not the same as an article on the company itself" isn't particularly compelling, since the one article criticises multiple STANLIB funds and ends with the statement Investors currently holding unit trusts may want to scrutinise the actions of their fund managers a little more closely as they weigh up where your money is safest. [17] - that is a clear criticism of the entire company. Regardless, the primary purpose of an asset manager is fund performance, most coverage about them would be about that. You may well be right about the size of their PR department (I don't know), but that would just be a secondary indicator of the size of the organisation. There are a big number of mentions across multiple WP:RS (and that's taking paywalls into account, without paywalls, I'm sure there will be even more: Financial Mail, Business Day, Business Times have all largely vanished from Google). Despite this loss of sources, there is still critical third party coverage that plainly meets WP:SIRS spanning multiple decades. I'm not going to WP:BLUDGEON this AfD, and I actually don't have anything invested in STANLIB (as an editor, or financially) but I do think this article represents an interesting case of whether WP:WORLDVIEW still holds. There has been a dearth of South African editors participating in these AFDs (and for some reason, it seems, on Wikipedia in general in recent times), and it's hard (and getting harder because SA journalism is in crisis, and also disappearing from the web) for people in other countries to evaluate sources without being able to weigh their credibility. Park3r (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journalists use anonymous sources all the time. An anonymous quote by a connected party in a WP:RS does not render that source non-reliable, just because the source is not identified in the article. If that were the case, large swathes of acclaimed modern journalism would be rendered “non-reliable”. Park3r (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not journalists and this is an encyclopedia so, no, we certainly don't ever rely on anonymous sources and which you might use an anonymous source to establish a fact or some information within an article (which if controversial will almost certainly be challenged and removed) we have a higher standard when it comes to establishing notability and anonymous sources are never going to meet our criteria in that regard. HighKing++ 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not relying on the contents of the source to make factual claims about STANLIB in this AFD, that’s something that needs to be dealt with if the source is used in an article. The purpose of the AFD is to establish notability. The Kenyan link shared by Hobit is another example of a critical article that met the parameters of journalism (rather than PR), in addition to the other critical coverage I shared from South African financial websites/papers.Park3r (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the purpose of the AfD is to establish notability - and because the subject is a company/organization, those criteria can be found in NCORP. I've asked that Hobit (or anyone) identify which parts of the article they linked to contains information which does not originate from connected sources and therefore meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND criteria in particular. Notably, there's been no response to that request.
You earlier argued different points - for example articles that were critical of the company should establish notability. Now you're arguing that an article that "meets the parameters of journalism" should establish notability. I disagree and your points are not supported by any of our guidelines. To determine whether a reference meets NCORP criteria we can apply a simple test to the content. First, simply remove from each article being examined all of the information not *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the subject and look at what's left. Does what's left meet CORPDEPTH? I've applied this test to all of the sources and in my view, the content that remains is scant or irrelevant to the subject and therefore not a single reference has enough content remaining that meets CORPDEPTH. If you disagree, please use Hobit's references as a starting point and let me know which paragraphs/sentences remain that together provides Deep or significant coverage such as an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis of the subject as per CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 16:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More